Thomas proclaims that cometary material around the star beta Pictoris is "evidence of recent creation".

However:- the abstract to the paper in Nature states: "Our results show that the evaporating bodies observed for decades in the β Pictoris system are analogous to the comets in our own Solar System". I take that to mean that - as in our solar system - there are thought to be short period and also long period comets (in our solar system the latter are thought to come from what is called the Oort Cloud - yet young earth creationists deny that the Oort Cloud even exists); - this solar system - in contrast to our own - looks young (or at least the material around the star does). Yet the star is only 63 light years away - not nearly 6,000 light years or indeed further (surely if that star and solar system was created at the same time as the Earth and our Sun it would look more like our solar system does with its eight ancient or 'mature' planets - and which has been aged at around 4.5 bn years old based on radiometric dating of meteorites).

So how does Thomas seek to persuade that these likely exocomets are "evidence of recent creation"?

By misleading people. I quote: "If that huge chaotic explosion [the Big Bang of around 13 bn years ago] really describes how the universe began, then shouldn't stars and planets—which do not form spontaneously—all look very similar?" The answer of course is NO.

Astronomers are aware of stars of different ages and type, and also different generations. I am sure that Thomas is also aware of the evidence for this. Yet he pretends otherwise.

I also cannot make ANY sense of Thomas' fifth paragraph - where he appears to totally contradict himself.

Maybe some of these exocomets are quite young (younger than 'creation week' even). So what?

PPS At 21.23 pm GMT on 8 Nov.Sorensen has come along and lied to everyone else that I 'misrepresent' creationists. And Harold has exclaimed "AHW's comments above cannot be refuted because they have no substance". Sorry, Harold, it does not work like that. I am clearly rattling the cages of some very extreme and ridiculous people who visit the ICR facebook page. They hate science and they hate anybody ever disagreeing with their pseudo-science or their hero's pseudo-science.

PS The first link is not working properly but it is typed correctly and worked for me originally. The first para of the Description states:"The series' hero is Remo Williams, a Newark cop framed for a crime and sentenced to death. His death is faked by the government so he can be trained as an assassin for CURE, a secret organization set up by President Kennedy to defend the country by working outside the law. The head of CURE is Harold W. Smith, a man selected by the President for his brilliant mind but also because of his integrity. Smith was a former law instructor at Yale and served in the Office of Strategic Services during World War II."

PPS Either I'm dealing with a nutter or there is something strange going on.

Further proof that Sorensen only listens to people he already agrees with (as well as lying about evidence):http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/11 ... verse.htmlThe person locked into an anti-scientific worldview is the false accuser Sorensen and not me. He has not refuted what I wrote. He cannot do so. So he lies about me and 'secular astronomers' instead. I think that is pathetic behaviour by a so-called biblical Christian. A closed-minded bigot who claims that secular astronomers are "ignoring the evidence". An unsubstantiated claim. A false claim by a liar. Who does the very same thing himself - in this case the evidence I put forward that Brian Thomas lied, and that the universe with its very varied stars and solar systems looks very very old and not very recent.

Now Sorensen will take a screenshot of this and accuse me in red ink of "lack of logic", "misrepresentation" and unspeakable "fallacies" or some such. However he will NOT refute my original argument.

(Although his comment is no longer visible, Sorensen did participate in the conversation here - as well as lying on one of his blog pages about a couple of my comments in the thread:https://www.facebook.com/icr.org'Harold Smith has just crawled out from under his stone again. He must be a glutton for punishment.)

PS at 1.20 am on 13 Nov: Sorensen and 'Smith' are still lying on the ICR facebook page. They clearly hate me for telling the truth about them.

Email as just sent - after being lied about once again [minor typos now corrected and post is now FINAL after minor edits]:

"'Two evil or insane young earth creationist liars'.

Cowboy' Bob Sorensen and 'Harold Smith'.

https://www.facebook.com/icr.orgPlease see the thread which begins with these misleading 'wishful thinking' comments by the Institute for Creation Research:"Exocomets: Evidence of Recent Creation: Astronomers recently detected evidence of possible comets orbiting a faraway star system named β Pictoris. They compared what they saw to what our solar system may have looked like billions of years ago when the earth and moon were supposedly forming out of a chaotic debris cloud. But details from their report easily refute this imagined "planetary-system formation," and instead illustrate how God recently and uniquely created space objects. More...".

The attached photo from the conversation shows two obviously different species of badger which these morons are pretending are the same species, plus the recent comment that Bob has dishonestly since deleted - in a desperate and totally mendacious attempt to claim that I have 'lied' about his words or made something up.

After I posted links with the two badger photos published by Sorensen, Smith wrote earlier tonight: "No, YOU SPOT THE DIFFERENCE, PATHETIC LITTLE MAN! You're right, everyone else is wrong, even though you never went to school."

And Sorensen then wrote tonight (after first deleting his preceding post): "He says I agree. Another lie documented." Well, if I misunderstood Sorensen and wrongly thought he was being honest and rational for once, he should try writing in plain English (and show some humility for a change). But Sorensen has been trying for years to document alleged 'lying' by myself - and he has failed EVERY single time. I have exposed serial lying by him though. He does not like it. I think he wants me censored from the world wide web.

My latest main reply (just in case the ICR hide it):"And we already know that Sorensen is an unrepentant hate-filled serial liar. He has admitted above (before dishonestly deleting his post because he is an evil man who cannot ever tell the truth - but I have a photo of his post which I am now going to email to a wider audience): "attacking over a perceived error like that is the intellectual equivalent of "typo pouncing" and smacks of desperation". From which I made the reasonable assumption that Bob was admitting that the photo at 'Piltdown Superman' indeed showed the wrong species of badger. However, now he is disgustingly accusing me of lying when everybody else - who is not insane or blind - can spot the difference. But I am not fooled by Bob's desperate insanity act - I believe him to be evil and misguided but probably not insane. (And I am still taking photos so I would advise against deleting any earlier posts and then trying to convince other people that the person who is 'insane' is the anti-YEC Mr Ashley Haworth-Roberts.) (Nobody else here is fooled by your unChristian antics anyway.)"

Assuming the person masquerading as the fictional 'Harold Smith' (director of a fictional sanatorium in Rye, New York) has one, perhaps someone could also forward this to HIS email address? Though I'm also posting it at the BCSE community forum. I do not think Sorensen is insane, but Smith possibly could have mental health issues (see the whole thread).

PPS My further comment at the ICR facebook thread:"Bottom line. I did NOT lie about Sorensen. He said I was doing the equivalent of "typo pouncing" which I totally reasonably took as an admission (why deny it unless you are blind or insane) of a not very critical MISTAKE. Anyway, if Sorensen was not a career liar and fraud trying to portray me (and other critics) as 'liars' he would not silently delete his own earlier post which I took a photograph of and which shows that HE is the dishonest one not me. But he IS and he DOES."

Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Part of an email just sent to Sorensen and two others (not Smith because I don't know his email address):

"I am still waiting for you to refute my post at the BCSE community forum that you link to here:http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2014/11 ... m=facebook"Click here if you want to see one of his many screeds against me ...". (The ICR facebook thread I linked to there, which has since been zapped, showed Smith and you making repeated false statements and unsuccessfully accusing me of dishonesty; Smith even tried to claim that a Wikipedia photo he posted of a European badger was actually no different from an American badger.)

But of course me waiting for your refutation of my arguments is a total waste of time. You cannot do so. So you whinge instead - and lump me in with a load of people I have never met. Doubtless you will continue to vilify me on your CLOSED (to critics) blog pages if I dare criticise in future - on an OPEN forum - your pseudo-scientific claims and wilful denial of rational evidence-based conclusions about events in the recent or distant past. .

The person who will NOT engage with the real issues is YOU Mr Cowboy Sorensen. It is YOU who will not tell me how Brian Thomas did 'not' try to totally mislead Christians when he wrote "If that huge chaotic explosion really describes how the universe began, then shouldn't stars and planets—which do not form spontaneously—all look very similar?". No scientist believes such drivel.

Yet you accuse your critics: "Since they cannot defeat us in the area of real science, they resort to other tactics. It is not about the intellect". In my case that is Pure Lies. It is unrepentant YOU who resorts to underhand tactics - and then claims that it is me (along with others who I cannot speak for) who avoids discussing science and resorts to 'other' tactics. The person who will not investigate science, and believes what the likes of the ICR, CMI and AiG tell you you should be believing, is you.https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman

Would I 'stalk' you if I could 'not' expose you as extremely dishonest? It would be a strange way to spend ones time.

Your YEC beliefs - a reaction to the claims of biology, geology and astronomy - are irrational. But I can only assume that they are is what your God wants his followers to adhere to since they are based on Bible verses not evidence. (Your behaviour when challenged - and when not - Includes telling untruths to try and make real science look irrational, and accusing critics of being of an unsound mind.)

If in response to this you continue to lie about me on your blogs or on facebook, I will send another wide circulation email exposing your evil.

Are you going to answer the email from Professor Tertius of the bible.and.science.forum?"

And that doesn't stop you lying about me at the ICR facebook page last week regarding something you wrote in a comment which you then pulled, totally ignoring my refutation of your accusation, and then pretending on your facebook hate page now that in my email above (also shown at the BCSE community forum) I changed the subject. Whereas what I did was: (1) turn the subject back to what it was ORIGINALLY - the dishonesty of Brian Thomas here which you refuse to discuss because you cannot refute what I wrote:http://www.icr.org/article/8387 and;(2) respond to your Piltdown Superman blog post of 16 Nov where you wished to persuade your readers that my comments were just "unsubstantiated libellous raving" (you have NOT shown, because you CANNOT, that my comments that you linked to were anything other than a truthful attack exposing your hate and serial dishonesty). As I wrote at the ICR facebook page after Bob said that he had documented a 'lie' by myself ""Attacking over a perceived error like that is the intellectual equivalent of "typo pouncing" and smacks of desperation". From which I made the reasonable assumption that Bob was admitting that the photo at 'Piltdown Superman' indeed showed the wrong species of badger. However, now he is disgustingly accusing me of lying when everybody else - who is not insane or blind - can spot the difference." A 'typo' is an uncorrected MISTAKE. So is a wrong photograph when you are discussing a different sort of badger.

Bob should stop his pretence that I have 'lied' or else prove that I have.

But he will do NEITHER - because he is addicted to lying about anti-YECs he cannot deal with in a rational manner.

Only a hate-filled religious liar would call someone 'demonic' for speaking the truth. But I guess Sorensen is still angry and frustrated that he cannot refute what I wrote in the thread at the ICR facebook page (nor could the insane Smith who has just written: "That loser has been taking shots at me. I guess anyone who agrees with you or any other creationist about ANYTHING is a liar in his little mind. He probably won't see these comments, I think he got his facebook acct suspended again").

But his overriding priority is to lie to his stupid fans about his critics, and portray himself as a wonderful Bible-based 'Christian' dogmatist who is being persecuted and stalked by lots of nasty critics of YEC pseudo-scientific garbage and wilful lying.

YEC John Heininger asked to unsubscribe from messages such as this one. Cowboy Bob did not.

A H-R"

PS at 2.28 am:Liar Sorensen has just written on his facebook hate page:"By the way, the narcissist knows full well that I blocked his e-mail. So he took out another account to continue harassing me and others. I blocked that too, which he also knows. So he continues to send e-mail to me. Diddly dur hay!"No - as I have already explained, I took out a gmail account because I found O2 to be useless. Not because I needed a new way to 'harass' poor persecuted Bob.And Bob does read some of my emails - because he REPLIED to one of them over the weekend (copied to others). His message? "The truth hurts, so you try to deny it. Thanks for the spam. Reported".Your lies only fool other stupid or evil people, Bob. I will continue to email YOU when I am talking about online rubbish YOU may publish. Whether you read it is up to you but it may not be in your interests not to.

http://www.icr.org/article/8499Thomas is using that hackneyed 'living fossil that has not evolved' argument. Even though the Abstract of the paper in PLOS ONE* merely refers to "similarities between Dendrogramma and a group of Ediacaran (Vendian) medusoids". Of course, NO scientists are saying these difficult to classify animals are identical species to ones from Ediacaran times. Thomas does not specifically pretend that they are but says that the creature "challenges evolutionary interpretations of biology" - because it is a creature "with ancient fossil representatives yet still alive today". But that does not preclude evolution and the species have not also been found fossilised in Ediacaran rock layers. Thomas does make one highly misleading comment in his attempt to persuade that no evolution has happened in the (alleged) massive amount of time since the Ediacaran - "evolution had no effect on it over the course of 550 million years". He grasps at straws - hoping that scientists will eventually conclude that the species were around, exactly as they are now, in the Ediacaran. But the paper in PLOS ONE actually states "we would like to point to an interesting similarity between Dendrogramma and a small group of Precambrian Ediacara (Vendian) trilobozoid medusoids. In particular we draw attention to taxa such as Albumares, Anfesta, and Rugoconites ...".I would have thought a YEC ought to be arguing that "evolution must be false because the paper's abstract is saying "these mushroom-shaped organisms cannot be referred to either of the two phyla Ctenophora or Cnidaria at present, because they lack any specialised characters of these taxa"". (But I suppose saying "evolution is false because these mushroom-shaped animals don't appear to be related to any other species and thus were specially created" is not going to help them since YECs have already conceded - because of the abundant evidence - that there is natural selection and genetic change ie there is relatedness between similar species or genera, though of course they say that evolution/adaptation cannot proceed beyond 'kind boundaries'.)